REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the review of the Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment
Date: 2023-12-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: dangerous substance, electrical equipment, electronic equipment, electronic waste, hazardous waste, market supervision, marketing standard, regulatory policy, waste recycling

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 7.12.2023  COM(2023) 760 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the review of the Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment {SWD(2023) 760 final}  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  report has been prepared to reflect  the outcome of the  Commission’s  general 
review of Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic 
equipment (the ‘RoHS Directive’) (1). It answers the requirement in Article 24(2) of 
the  RoHS  Directive  for  the  Commission  to  carry  out  a  general  review  of  the 
Directive  no  later  than  22  July  2021,  and  to  present  a  report  to  the  European 
Parliament and the Council, accompanied, if appropriate, by a legislative proposal.  

Independent consultants supported the collection of information and its assessment, 
under an evaluation study launched in 2018 and finalised in March 2021(2). By that 
time  another  study  was  launched  to  propose  options  to  improve  the  deficiencies 
identified in the evaluation study and to assess their possible impacts. As it became 
apparent  during  the  work  that  no  full  impact  assessment  is  necessary,  the  work 
shifted  to  filling  data  gaps  for  the  evaluation.  This  second  support  study  was 
finalised in May 2023 (3). Stakeholders were consulted as part of this process, which 
included  an  open  public  consultation  and  targeted  consultations  of  industry 
stakeholders and representatives of national administrations. This report reflects the 
main  results  of  the  evaluation  carried  out  by  the  Commission  and  supported  by 
those two studies, presented in its entirety in the related staff working document (4). 
On this basis, forward-looking conclusions have been drawn up. 

2.  BACKGROUND 

The 2011 RoHS Directive follows the recast of the earlier Directive from 2002 (5), 
which  was  the  first  comprehensive  EU  legislation  on  the  subject  of  restricting 
certain  hazardous substances (6) in  electrical  and  electronic  equipment  (EEE). The 
Directive  complements  the  Directive  on  waste  electrical  and  electronic  equipment 
(WEEE),  which  was  adopted,  and  recast,  in  parallel (7).  The  key  objectives  of  the 

(1)  Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction 
of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, OJ L 174, 1.7.2011, 
p.88. 

(2)  European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment, Support for the evaluation of Directive 
2011/65/EU  on  the restriction  of  the  use  of  certain hazardous  substances  in  electrical  and  electronic 
equipment: final report, Publications Office, 2021 

(3)  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Environment,  Study  to  support  the  assessment  of 
impacts  associated  with  the  general  review  of  Directive  2011/65/EU  (RoHS  Directive), Publications 
Office 2023 

(4)  SWD(2023)760  

(5)  Directive  2002/95/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  January  2003  on  the 
restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment - OJ L 37, 
13.2.2003, p.19. 

(6)  Currently,  10  substances  and  substance  groups  are  restricted.  These  are  lead,  mercury,  cadmium, 
hexavalent  chromium,  polybrominated  biphenyls,  polybrominated  diphenyl  ethers,  bis(2-ethylhexyl) 
phthalate, benzyl butyl phthalate, dibutyl phthalate, diisobutyl phthalate 

(7)  Directive  2002/96/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  January  2003  on  waste 
electrical  and  electronic  equipment  (WEEE),  OJ  L  37,  13.2.2003,  p.  24  –  replaced  by  Directive 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
RoHS  Directive  are:  to  reduce  the  amount  of  hazardous  substances  in  EEE  to 
protect  human  health  and  the  environment;  and  to  facilitate  the  environmentally 
sound recovery and disposal of waste EEE. In particular, even where waste EEE is 
collected  separately  and  submitted  to  recycling  processes,  the  content  of  e.g.  the 
heavy metals and flame retardants concerned would likely pose risks to health and 
the  environment,  especially  when  treated  in  sub-optimal  conditions (8).  The 
Directive  also  aims  to  ensure  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market  (9)  through 
harmonisation of Member State legislation (10).  

The Directive’s annexes were amended through delegated acts to amend the list of 
substance restrictions in Annex II (11) and to amend the list of exemptions to them in 
Annexes  III  and  IV (12).  Such  time-limited  exemptions  from  the  substance 
restrictions  can  be  granted  for  specific  applications  under  well-defined  conditions 
laid  down  in  Article  5(1)(a),  including  that  substitution  is  technically  not  feasible. 
Where  exemptions  are  granted  following  an  application,  they  will  be  included  in 
Annex  III  or  IV.  The  exemption  lists  are  updated  in  line  with  technical  progress, 
while  the  technical  evaluation  of  the  exemption  requests  is  supported  by  external 
consultants.  

The  RoHS  Directive  was  amended  notably  in  2017 (13),  as  the  result  of  the  scope 
review carried out  to  give effect  to  Article 24(1).  Since 2019, the RoHS Directive 
covers  all  EEE  (‘open  scope’),  ranging  from  household  appliances  to  medical 
devices. Scope exclusions include military equipment, space equipment, large-scale 
stationary industrial tools (e.g. printing presses, milling and drilling machines) and 
fixed installations (e.g. electricity generators). Also exempt are photovoltaic panels. 

Besides  the  key  provisions  on  substance  restrictions,  the  RoHS  Directive  also 
includes  a  number  of  provisions  aimed  at  enabling  the  reuse  and  repair  of  EEE 
containing  restricted  substances,  to  help  promote  resource  efficiency  and  circular 
economy  objectives.  The  2017  amendment  gave  particular  attention  to  this, 
expanding  the scope of  exemptions  from  the substance restriction  for  reused spare 
parts, which are still necessary for certain used devices due to limited compatibility, 
provided that they are recovered from EEE under a closed-loop return system (14).  

2012/19/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  4  July  2012  on  waste  electrical  and 
electronic equipment (WEEE), OJ L 197, 24.7.2012, p. 38–71. 

(8)  Recital 7 of Directive 2011/65/EU. 

(9)  Recital 2 of the RoHS Directive reads: ‘The disparities between the laws or administrative measures adopted by 
the  Member  States  regarding  the  restriction  of  the  use  of  hazardous  substances  in  electrical  and  electronic 
equipment (EEE) could create barriers to trade and distort competition in the Union and may thereby have a direct 
impact  on  the  establishment  and  functioning  of  the  internal  market.  It  therefore  appears  necessary  to  lay  down 
rules in this field and to contribute to the protection of human health and the environmentally sound recovery and 
disposal of waste EEE’. 

(10)  The RoHS Directive is also relevant for the European Economic Area (EEA). 
(11)  In 2015, four plasticizers of the group of phthalates were  added to the list – Commission Delegated 

Directive (EU) 2015/863 of 31 March 2015, OJ L 137, 4.6.2015, p. 10. 

(12)  see consolidated version of the Directive 2011/65/EU – M1-M80 (except M29 and M37) 

(13)  Directive  (EU)  2017/2102  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  November  2017 
amending  Directive  2011/65/EU  on  the  restriction  of  the  use  of  certain  hazardous  substances  in 
electrical and electronic equipment, OJ L 305, 21.11.2017, p.8. 

(14)  Corresponds to the communication COM/2015/0614 

2 

 
 
 
 
3.  POLICY INTERACTION 

In addition to the WEEE Directive, the RoHS Directive interacts with a number of 
other EU policies and legislation. The RoHS Directive contributes to the objectives 
of the Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) under the umbrella of the European 
Green  Deal (15)(16)  among  others  by  exempting  spare  parts  from  the  substance 
restrictions. The Directive facilitates the recovery of critical raw materials targeted 
by the Commission’s recent proposal for a Regulation establishing a framework for 
ensuring a secure and sustainable supply of critical raw materials (17), by aiming to 
support non-contaminated waste streams. 

It  has  strong  links  to  chemicals  legislation  like  the  Regulation  of  Registration, 
Evaluation,  Authorisation  and  Restriction  of  Chemicals  (REACH  Regulation) (18) 
and  the  Regulation  of  persistent  organic  pollutants  (POPs  Regulation) (19).  It  also 
links  to  the  chemicals  strategy  for sustainability (20), which aims to  achieve  a safe 
and sustainable-by-design approach and non-toxic material cycles, including EEE. 

The  RoHS  Directive  regulates  products  and  thus  is  a  product  legislation,  which 
contains  harmonised  provisions  concerning  the  conformity  assessment  and  the 
market surveillance. Ecodesign requirements for specific EEE established under the 
framework  of  the  Ecodesign  Directive (21)(22)  are  closely  linked  to  the  substance 
restrictions under the RoHS Directive. 

4.  FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION 

The  evaluation 
the  European  Commission’s  Better  Regulation 
guidelines (23)  and  considered  the  evaluation  criteria  of  relevance,  effectiveness, 
efficiency, coherence, and EU added value.  

followed 

4.1.  Effectiveness 

It  has  been  difficult  to  quantify  the  Directive’s  direct  impact  on  the  reduction  of 
hazardous  substances  in  electrical  and  electronic  equipment  placed  on  the  EU 

(15)  COM(2020) 98 final. 

(16)  COM(2019) 640 final 

(17)  COM(2023) 160 final.  

(18)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 
concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), OJ L 
396, 30.12.2006, p. 1. 

(19)  Regulation  (EC)  No  850/2004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  29  April  2004  on 

persistent organic pollutants (POPs), OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 7. 

(20)  COM(2020) 667 final. 

(21)  Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing 
a  framework  for  the  setting  of  ecodesign  requirements  for  energy-related  products,  OJ  L  285, 
31.10.2009, p. 10.  

(22)  Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for 
setting  ecodesign  requirements  for  sustainable  products  and  repealing  Directive  2009/125/EC, 
COM(2022) 142 final.  

(23)  Better Regulation: guidelines and toolbox – November 2021. 

3 

 
 
 
 
market.  One  reason  for  this  is  that  several  initiatives  and  legislative  acts  have  an 
effect on the amount of hazardous substances in EEE. The support study estimated 
that the introduction of the RoHS Directive may have reduced restricted substances 
in  EEE  between  2003  and  2016  by  roughly  two  thirds.  While  this  estimation  was 
made under certain conditions and did not cover all substances currently in Annex II 
to  the  Directive,  it  can  nevertheless  be  stated  that  the  RoHS  Directive  helped  to 
reduce  the  relative  amount  of  hazardous  substances  in  EEE  placed  on  the  EU 
market. 

Reducing hazardous substances in EEE is intended to contribute to the objective of 
protecting human health. In particular, workers in the WEEE treatment sector are 
at  risk  of  exposure  to  the  listed  hazardous  substances.  By  reducing  hazardous 
substances per EEE in that waste stream, waste management processes overall have 
become safer for workers in the sector. This impact was, however, also partially a 
result of measures to protect the health and safety of workers in the EU.  

Lowering the amount of hazardous substances in EEE also  has  positive  effects  on 
the environment by reducing the risk of these substances being emitted into the 
environment.  In  addition,  the  substance  restrictions  also  lower  the  risk  of 
detrimental  environmental  and  health  effects  resulting  from  WEEE  that  is  not 
properly  collected  and  treated.  This  is  relevant  when  considering  that  the  average 
collection rate of WEEE in the EU was 45.9 % in 2020 (24). 

The  substitution  of  hazardous  substances  also  contributed  to  a  higher  uptake  of 
recycled  material,  as  ‘clean’  secondary  material  is  more  likely  to  meet  product 
requirements.  

The use of cables and spare parts containing hazardous substances is still allowed, 
under certain conditions. Cables and spare parts can be used in equipment placed on 
the  market  before  it  came  within  the  scope  of  the  Directive.  Also,  under  certain 
conditions, recovered spare parts can be used in EEE placed on the market 10 years 
after the equipment came within the Directive’s scope. Additionally, it is possible to 
use  spare  parts  containing  hazardous  substances  for  devices  that  still  depend  on 
them by granting a time-limited exemption under Annexes III or IV, as appropriate.  
This also contributes to using resources as efficiently as possible and to avoiding a 
premature  end  of  life  for  electrical  and  electronic  equipment.  In  this  respect,  the 
Directive  has  been  effective  in  contributing  to  the  objectives  of  a  circular 
economy. 

However, the total reduction of hazardous substances in WEEE is partially offset by 
the  increasing  volume  of  WEEE  generated  in  Europe,  resulting  in  a  current 
annual  growth  rate  of  the  WEEE  stream  of  2%  (25).  The  evaluation  support  study 
also found that while more and more electrified equipment (e.g. in the smart home 
sector) is placed on the market, the average lifespan of EEE has decreased.  

(24)  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Waste_statistics_-

_electrical_and_electronic_equipment&oldid=556612; measured as the weight of WEEE collected relative to the 
average weight of electronic equipment put on the market in the three preceding years, i.e. 2017-2019 

(25)   COM(2019) 640 final. 

4 

 
 
 
 
4.2.  Efficiency 

The  RoHS  Directive  has  led  to  environmental  and  health  benefits,  such  as 
reducing  risk  to  the  environment  and  human  health  from  hazardous  substances  in 
EEE.  There  have  also  been  economic  benefits,  as  the  Directive  has  created  legal 
certainty  for  all  stakeholders  and  established  a  level  playing  field  for  EEE 
businesses  in  the  internal  market.  In  addition,  the  RoHS  Directive  has  prompted 
investments in finding substitutes for hazardous substances. In many cases this 
led  to  the  development  of  alternatives,  and  so  had  a  positive  effect  on  beneficial 
innovation. 

Nevertheless, the implementation of the RoHS Directive is naturally also linked to 
costs  for  stakeholders.  These  consist  of  compliance  costs  relating  to  information 
requirements,  compliance  costs  relating  to  engineering  costs,  and  enforcement  & 
implementation costs. The costs are strongly depending on the situation of economic 
operators  and  hence  the  available  data  do  not  allow  a  reliable  estimation  of  the 
costs.   

The  main  driver  for  compliance  costs  relating  to  information  requirements  is 
managing information in the supply chain and following the conformity assessment 
procedure. This includes collecting information, providing technical documentation 
and  maintaining  an  IT  system.  Most  of  the  compliance  costs  relevant  for  RoHS 
obligations  stem  from  general  requirements  for  placing  products  on  the  market 
which are also relevant under other product legislation applicable for EEE (e.g. the 
Low  Voltage  Directive (26)).  However,  these  costs  are  affected  by  changes  in  the 
Directive, such as adding new substances to the list of restricted substances. 

A cost driver can arise for companies, which still require time-limited exemptions. 
Such costs arise from preparing the application,  gathering the relevant information 
in  accordance  with  Annex  V  to  the  RoHS  Directive  and  from  providing  further 
evidence during the evaluation. However, once granted, an exemption under RoHS 
is  valid  for  all  economic  operators  and  thus  the  costs  are  not  borne  by  each 
company relying on the exemption.  

Investments  in  the  form  of  developing  and  validating  substitutes  or  technical 
alternatives  were  needed  when  restrictions  came  into  force.  The  same  applies  for 
new  restrictions.  Those  compliance  costs  relating  to  re-design  and  engineering 
occurred  mainly  around  2003  with  the  first  RoHS  Directive,  again  in  2011,  when 
the scope was expanded, and lastly in 2015, when the four plasticizers were added 
to  the  list  of  restricted  substances,  even  though  many  companies  are  constantly 
striving to develop new designs.  

The provisions on market surveillance are central to the Directive’s implementation 
and  enforcement.  Market  surveillance  is  strengthened  by  the  framework  of  the 
Market  Surveillance  Regulation (27).  Effects  of  that  Regulation  include  making 

(26)  Directive 2014/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation 
of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of electrical equipment designed 
for use within certain voltage limits, OJ L 96, 29.3.2014, p. 357–374 

(27)  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1020  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  June  2019  on  market 
surveillance and compliance of products and amending Directive 2004/42/EC and Regulations (EC) No 765/2008 
and (EU) No 305/2011, OJ L 169, 25.6.2019, p. 1–44 

5 

 
 
 
 
RoHS  subject  to  the  European  Product  Compliance  Network  and  establishing  an 
administrative  cooperation  group  to  harmonise  enforcement  across  countries.  For 
Member  States,  enforcement  costs  are  higher  than  implementation  costs. 
Implementation costs mainly arise from the fact that many Member States have to 
transpose amendments of the annexes by individual delegated directives. From 2012 
to  December  2022,  around  80  Commission  delegated  directives  were  adopted, 
above  all  concerning  exemptions  under  Annexes  III  and  IV.  The  frequent  need  of 
transposition creates an administrative burden for some Member States.  

Regarding  enforcement  costs,  Member  States  have  different  resources,  strategies 
and  use  different  measures  to  check  compliance  with  the  RoHS  Directive.  The 
verification  of  the  CE  marking  obligations  and  of  the  presence  and  validity  of  the 
technical  documentation  was  identified  as  the  least  burdensome  and  most 
economical way. Only a fraction of EEE that come onto the market can be inspected 
for compliance with the RoHS substance restriction requirements. Estimations have 
suggested a non-compliance rate in the range of 23-28% of inspected EEE, although 
due to a lack of information there are still many unanswered questions.  

The  evaluation  identified  several  factors  where  the  exemption  process  lacks 
transparency  and  efficiency,  and  identified  areas  with  potential  to  improve  this 
process. In particular, stakeholders pointed to a perceived lack of clarity concerning 
Article  5(1)(a),  which  lays  down  the  criteria  for  granting,  renewing  or  revoking 
exemptions.  

To  meet  this  concern  and  improve  transparency,  an  exemption  methodology, 
application  form  and  guidance  document  were  drawn  up  and  published  on  the 
dedicated  Commission  website  (28).  Stakeholder  consultation  takes  place  in  the 
process of assessing an exemption request, respective information is made publicly 
available,  and  draft  delegated  acts  are  open  for  public  feedback  according  to  the 
Better Regulation guidelines.  

Another weak point in the procedure is the duration of the exemption process from 
the  application  date  until  the  adoption  of  the  delegated  directive.  On  average,  the 
evaluation  of  exemptions  and  the  related  decision  making  takes  more  than  24 
months, and more than 60 exemption requests are pending (status December 2022).  

Several factors are relevant here. Firstly, the technical complexity and level of detail 
have  increased  over  the  years  as  exemptions  became  more  specific.  Instead  of 
focusing  on  larger  and  general  application  areas,  exemptions  came  to  focus  on 
specific applications, where substitution is not easily applicable, and thus were split 
into sub-exemptions. Secondly, different EEE categories (in line with Annex I to the 
Directive)  may  be  relevant  for  one  exemption  entry  (i.e.,  one  specific  application) 
with  different  expiry  dates.  This  multiplies  the  number  of  applications  and 
evaluations.  Thirdly,  Article  5(1)(a)  requires  amendments  to  be  adopted  by  means 
of  individual  delegated  directives,  which  significantly  increases  the  administrative 
work.  The  fourth  factor  concerns  the  availability  of  resources  for  managing  the 
process related to exemption requests. This is relevant not only for the Commission, 
but  also  for  applicants:  preparing  an  application  and,  where  necessary,  providing 

(28)  Documents 

are 

available 

on 

the 

Commission’s 

RoHS 

website: 

https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/rohs-directive_en  

6 

 
 
 
 
additional  information  during  the  assessment  process  has  resource  implications, 
while insufficiently documented applications prolong the process.   

The  evaluation  also  found  that  in  exempted  applications  there  is  less  potential  to 
further  reduce  the  presence  of  certain  hazardous  substances  compared  to  when  a 
restriction  was  newly  introduced.  This  implies  that  the  benefit  of  narrowing  the 
scope  of  an  exemption,  in  terms  of  amount  of  substances  avoided,  is  in  general 
smaller  than  was  initially  the  case.  Furthermore,  not  all  but  many  exemptions  are 
now practically relevant for a limited number of companies.  

In addition, it is increasingly difficult to thoroughly assess the technical information 
provided by the applicant. This is due to the increasing complexity and decreasing 
participation by stakeholders in the process, in particular,  competing companies or 
NGOs.  This  can  lead  to  one-sided  input  to  the  evaluations  and  affect  its  scientific 
robustness.  Relying  on  external  consultants  for  technical  support  has  certain 
advantages,  but  often  means  changing  interlocutors,  generating  a  risk  of  loss  of 
continuity.  In  addition,  the  work  can  be  hampered  by  contractual  arrangements  to 
respond flexibly to changes (e.g. by withdrawn exemption requests). 

Further to the exemption process, the process of reviewing and amending the list 
of restricted substances  was  identified to lack transparency and predictability for 
stakeholders. The RoHS Directive does not contain any procedural requirements in 
this  respect  other  than  the  obligation  to  consult  interested  parties.  A  methodology 
for the substance restriction was prepared by external consultants and published as 
part  of  a  support  study (29).  In  addition,  it  was  found  to  be  resource-  and  time-
intensive  to  obtain  all  relevant  data  on  the  substance  and  corresponding  EEE 
throughout  its  life  cycle  and  to  assess  different  conflicting  data.  The  scientific 
robustness  of  the  current  process  is  in  need  of  improvement,  in  particular  through 
more central sourcing of information and assessment.  

4.3.  Coherence 

As regards the RoHS Directive’s ‘external coherence’ (i.e. its consistency with other 
relevant  rules),  the  evaluation  found  potential  and  observed  overlap  between  the 
substance  restrictions  under  the  RoHS  Directive  and  those  under  the  REACH 
Regulation. The consistency with the Ecodesign Directive and the POPs Regulation 
was also considered problematic. These pieces of legislation all contain mechanisms 
to  restrict  or  affect  the  presence  of  certain  substances  in  EEE  or  their  related 
material streams. 

Under the REACH Regulation, the most relevant and comparable mechanisms here 
are  the  ‘restrictions’  and  ‘authorisations’  processes.  While  there  are  important 
differences  due  to  the  different  nature  and  motivation  of  the  legislation (30),  these 
processes can be compared to and correspond in the broadest sense to, respectively, 

(29)  Study to support the review of the list of restricted substances and to assess a new exemption request 

under RoHS 2 (Pack 15)  

(30)  REACH  applies  to  the  manufacture,  placing  on  the  market  and  use  of  substances  on  their  own,  in 
mixtures or in articles and to the placing of the market of mixtures and does not apply to waste. The 
RoHS  Directive  can  restrict  substances  used  specifically  in  the  electric  and  electronic  equipment  as 
laid out in categories in Annex I of the Directive with the aim of contributing to protect human health 
and the environment, including the environmentally sound recovery and disposal of waste. 

7 

 
 
 
 
the  substance  restriction  process  and  the  exemption  process  under  the  RoHS 
Directive.  Differences  in  the  methodology  between  the  respective  REACH  and 
RoHS  processes  can  complicate  the  coordination  to  align  decisions  under  both 
pieces of legislation. 

Further issues of coherence to other pieces of legislation were identified regarding 
the content of the restrictions and exemptions under the RoHS Directive. Provisions 
were  found  to  differ  in  terms  of  maximum  concentration  values,  scope  of  the 
legislation, deviations for spare parts, exemptions, expiry dates and documentation 
requirements.  For  example,  the  maximum  concentration  values  in  Annex  II  no 
longer  correspond  to  values  set  in  other  pieces  of  legislation  (e.g.  polybrominated 
biphenyl  ethers).  Another  example  of  inconsistency  stems  from  the  provisions 
concerning spare parts. These provisions, which were introduced due to the specific 
character  of  the  RoHS  Directive,  brought  in  an  approach  to  this  issue  that  is 
different from, or less prominent than in, other chemicals legislation. 

However,  when  considering  in  more  depth  many  general  claims  made  by 
stakeholders,  most  concerns  find  an  answer  in  legislative  and  non-legislative 
documents,  even  if  these  are  not  formulated  in  a  sufficiently  comprehensible  and 
transparent manner and the concerns expressed often relate only to individual areas 
without their broader impact being substantiated.    

4.4.  EU added value 

The recast of the RoHS Directive in 2011 built on the prior harmonisation achieved 
and  boosted  the  EU  added  value.  When  the  RoHS  Directive  was  first  adopted  in 
2002,  it  created  a  level  playing  field  and  helped  remove  disparities  between 
regulations  introduced  by  some  Member  States  prior  to  that  regarding  the  use  of 
hazardous  substances  in  electrical  and  electronic  equipment.  Moreover,  the 
harmonised  legal  framework  across  the  EU  supports  innovation  and  the  use  of 
substitutes and alternatives to replace the use of hazardous substances in EEE. 

All  Member  States  have  adopted  legislation  which  transposes  the  RoHS  Directive 
into national law. The recast of the Directive in 2011 introduced uniform application 
of general provisions regarding implementation (e.g. CE marking and declaration of 
conformity),  in  line  with  the  New  Legislative  Framework  (NLF)  (31).  Harmonised 
requirements  on  EEE  under  the  RoHS  Directive,  in  combination  with  harmonised 
rules under legislation on numerous products, thus help to establish and maintain a 
level  playing  field  for  EEE  and  in  turn  improving  the  functioning  of  the  internal 
market. The evaluation of the NLF (32) supports this finding by confirming that the 
NLF  has  not  only  supported  a  level  playing  field  but  also  the  consistency  and 
coherence of EU harmonisation legislation. 

The  recast  Directive  and  later  changes  to  extend  the  scope,  facilitated  further 
harmonisation of rules for equipment which have not been in the scope before, like 
medical devices. This has led to higher protection of the environment and health in 
the EU. Another aspect is, that the RoHS Directive was introduced together with the 
WEEE  Directive,  which  sets  rules  for  the  collection,  treatment,  recycling  and 

(31)  New  Legislative  Framework,  consisting  of  Regulation  (EC)  765/2008,  Decision  768/2008  and  Regulation  (EU) 

2019/1020 

(32)  SWD(2022) 365 final 

8 

 
 
 
 
disposal of WEEE to contribute to a sustainable production and consumption. Both 
legislative acts interact effectively with each other; separating them from each other 
at national and EU level would certainly have led to a less coherent situation.  

4.5.  Relevance 

In general, the RoHS Directive continues to respond to the needs reflected in its 
objectives,  namely  to  protect  human  health  and  the  environment  and  to  promote 
environmentally sound recovery and disposal of  WEEE. The substance restrictions 
set  up  via  the  Directive  are  an  important  factor  in  the  design  of  eco-friendly  EEE 
and  are  moreover  easily  comprehensible  to  everyone,  also  because  many  entries 
simply  cover  substance  groups  instead  of  having  a  long  and  exhaustive  list  of 
specific substance compounds (e.g. lead and all lead compounds are covered by the 
entry ‘lead’).  

The  relevance  of  the  RoHS  Directive  may  have  contributed  to  it  considerably 
influencing  the  development  of  regulatory  frameworks  regarding  hazardous 
substances in EEE in third countries. Multinational companies have often opted to 
apply  one  standard  to  streamline  procedures  and  save  costs  across  their  global 
production.  Thus,  the  first  harmonised  standard (33),  implementing  the  restrictions 
under  the  RoHS  Directive,  became  the  basis  for  the  relevant  international 
standard (34). Since then, more and more jurisdictions have been adopting legislation 
similar to the RoHS Directive, which helps trade in such equipment. 

The Directive’s relevance  has  even  been strengthened in  the context of  EU policy 
developments that have occurred since its inception. These include: 

• 

the  objectives  of  the  2020  CEAP  and  its  focus  on  electrical  and  electronic 
equipment, in the context of the increased focus on secondary raw materials.  

•  The chemicals strategy for sustainability that aims at a safe and sustainable-by-

design approach and non-toxic material cycles, including EEE.  

• 

the recovery of critical raw materials from  WEEE. Here, the material  flow is 
predestined for the recovery of these substances, as  long  as other, potentially 
hazardous  substances  do  not  contaminate  the  waste  stream  and  prevent  their 
economic recovery. 

Further  relevance  of  the  provisions  is  becoming  clear,  when  considering  the 
increasing  use  of  EEE  in  people’s  daily  lives.  The  amount  of  electrical  and 
electronic  equipment  put  on  the  market  in  the  EU  rose  from  7.6  million  tonnes  in 
2012  to  a  peak  of  12.4  million  tonnes  in  2020.    The  increase  in  EEE  volumes 
emphasises the need to  lower  the  environmental  impact  at  product  level,  of which 
the avoidance of hazardous substances is a crucial part.  

Another factor to be taken into account when considering the Directive’s relevance 
is  the  time  span  between  placing  EEE  on  the  market  and  the  end-of-life  stage  of 

(33)  EN  50581:2012  –  Technical  documentation  for  the  assessment  of  electrical  and  electronic  products 

with respect to the restriction of hazardous substances 

(34)  IEC  63000:2018  –  Technical  documentation  for  the  assessment  of  electrical  and  electronic  products 

with respect to the restriction of hazardous substances 

9 

 
 
 
 
such  equipment.  By  the  time  the  EEE  placed  on  the  market  today  will  become 
WEEE,  the  ambitions  for  recycling  will  have  risen  and  progress  in  scientific 
knowledge  of  potential  hazardous  substances  could  prevent  recycling  or  at  least 
increase the price of recycling of waste streams containing these substances. 

Other factors  may impact  the RoHS  Directive’s relevance.  If the  list of restricted 
substances is not regularly reviewed and amended, the Directive will lose part of its 
relevance,  even  though  restrictions  regarding  substances  in  EEE  could  also  be 
included  under  other  pieces  of  chemicals  legislation  such  as  the  REACH 
Regulation.  In  general,  also  incentives  other  than  regulatory  measures  can  support 
reducing  the  amount  of  hazardous  substances  in  EEE.  This  is  relevant  for  new 
potentially  hazardous substances or for applications which have been exempted so 
far.  For  example,  public  procurement  requirements  or  modulation  of  fees  for 
extended  producer  responsibility  under  the  WEEE  Directive  can  contribute  to 
substitution of those substances.   

The Directive’s relevance, particularly the relevance of its scope, can also suffer if 
scientific  and  technical  progress  is  not  appropriately  considered.  For  example, 
‘commercial’ photovoltaic panels have been initially excluded from the scope of the 
Directive so as not to hinder the growth of renewable energies, but as a result there 
are fewer incentives to develop alternatives free from hazardous substance. Another 
example  is  the  mechanism  of  the  time-limited  exemption  system,  which  does  not 
take  into  account  the  ratio  between  a  potential  exemption’s  relevance  and  scope 
versus  the  resources  and  efforts  spent  to  apply,  to  evaluate  and  implement  it.  As 
described above, the  requests became more and more specific and complex, partly 
for  low  quantities  of  hazardous  substances,  but  the  framework  for  adapting  to 
scientific  and  technical  progress  has  not  changed.  An  inefficient  process  can 
undermine  the  effectiveness  of  the  system,  which  is  to  allow  exemptions  where 
necessary, while at the same time supporting efforts to substitute those substances. 
Not  adapting  the  provisions  to  a  more  specific  exemption  system  (e.g.  by 
introducing  a  principle  of  proportionality)  can  delay  the  process.  For  example, 
exemptions for which renewal is requested remain valid until the Commission takes 
a  decision.  As  a  consequence  of  delays  in  decision-making,  this  can  lead  to  a 
relatively long, de facto extension of an exemption, which might be detrimental to 
frontrunners  in  the  sector  and  eventually  affect  the  exemption  system’s  relevance 
for reducing hazardous substances in EEE. 

The  evaluation  found  that  the  validity  periods  for  time-limited  exemptions  and 
transition  periods  in  case  of  expiry  are  too  short  for  EEE,  which  requires  long 
development,  testing  and  validation  time  (e.g.  for  certain  medical  devices).  Both 
periods are currently limited. Time-limited exemptions cannot exceed a seven-year 
validity period and where an exemption is revoked, a transition period of at least 12 
months but no more than 18 months applies.  

5. 

 CONCLUSIONS 

The  RoHS  Directive  has  helped  to  reduce  hazardous  substances  in  electrical  and 
electronic  equipment  (EEE)  in  the  EU  and  to  protect  of  human  health  and  the 
environment at different stages of the value chain.  

10 

 
 
 
The  evaluation  found  the  RoHS  Directive  is  overall  functioning  well,  despite  the 
shortcomings identified. The Directive restricts the presence of hazardous substances 
in EEE in a simple way and thus the presence of those in WEEE, and allows at the 
same  time  derogations  where  necessary.  By  providing  a  level  playing  field  for 
producers of electrical and electronic equipment, the Directive has also contributed 
to  the  harmonisation  and  functioning  of  the  internal  market.  Without  the  RoHS 
Directive, the same level of harmonisation could not have been achieved. The RoHS 
Directive  has  also  become  internationally  relevant  as  a  global  benchmark  for 
reducing  hazardous  substances  in  EEE,  with  potentially  significant  environmental 
and health benefits worldwide. 

The  evaluation  highlighted  that  the  processes  for  deciding  on  exemptions  and 
updating substance restrictions under the RoHS Directive are to some extent lacking 
transparency and efficiency, and can be improved in terms of  scientific robustness. 
Some methodological and procedural differences were also identified, among others, 
between preparatory work for the RoHS substance restriction, on one hand, and for 
the  substance  restrictions  and  authorisations  under  the  REACH  Regulation,  on  the 
other.   

that  responsibility  for 

the  technical  assessment  of 

To address  these problems  and to  contribute to  overall coherence, the Commission 
time-limited 
proposes, 
exemptions  and  the  process  of  reviewing  the  list  of  restricted  substances  be  re-
attributed  to  the  European  Chemicals  Agency  (ECHA).  This  would  represent  a 
change  from  the  current  practice,  where  the  Commission  is  supported  by  external 
consultants  in  charge  of  providing  technical  input.  Putting  ECHA  and  its  technical 
committees  in  charge  of  the  technical  assessment  process  given  an  appropriate 
transitional  period,  would  increase  consistency  and  effectiveness,  particularly  by 
addressing any interaction with other chemicals legislation. The Commission would 
continue  to  be  responsible  for  decision-making  on  possible  amendments  of  the 
respective Annexes to the Directive, which it would do by means of delegated acts. 

The  re-attribution  of  the  assessment  tasks  to  ECHA  would  not  affect  the 
substantive  requirements  that  are  the  basis  for  adopting  substance  restrictions  or 
corresponding exemptions. 

Such  re-attribution  would  strengthen  the  principle  of  ‘one  substance  -  one 
assessment’  established  within  the  framework  of  the  chemicals  strategy  for 
sustainability  and  would lead to more streamlined processes.  If the Agency  carried 
out the related assessment, it would be possible to use information and assessments 
already available or being gathered under other legislative acts relevant to the same 
substance  within  the  Agency’s  area  of  responsibility.  This  would  improve 
consistency  with  other  chemicals  legislation,  and  thus  help  meet  one  of  the 
requirements  under  the  RoHS  Directive,  namely  to  be  ‘coherent  with  other 
legislation  related  to  chemicals,  in  particular  Regulation  (EC)  N°  1907/2006’.  The 
fact that all the future applications for exemptions would be dealt with by ECHA and 
its  scientific  committees  would  also  ensure  consistency  in  the  recommendations  to 
be decided upon by the Commission, provided that, besides the required appropriate 
resources, ECHA could extend its expertise in the field of EEE as well as in the end 
of waste stage of EEE. 

Another synergy effect would be the possibility to use established IT tools managed 
by ECHA to inform stakeholders in a  known (i.e. as regards REACH) and modern 

11 

 
 
 
way, but also to have a single digital interface for submitting exemption requests and 
restriction  dossiers.  In  view  of  these  changes,  when  the  tasks  are  reassigned  to 
ECHA the Commission would provide guidance on the exemption requests and the 
process of reviewing the list of restricted substances.  

The  Commission  would  also  update  the  2012  ‘Frequently  Asked  Questions’ 
(FAQ) document, to address the identified need to clarify terminology, including in 
order 
to  remove  outdated 
interpretations. 

technical  and  scientific  progress,  or 

to  reflect 

Given the above and in view of other prioritised initiatives under the CEAP, at this 
stage this  general  review of the RoHS  Directive, as required by Article 24(2), will 
not be accompanied by a revision of the Directive but by a targeted amendment 
as regards the re-attribution of scientific and technical tasks to ECHA (35).  

Considerations for a future revision 

Acknowledging  that  not  all  identified  shortcomings  could  be  addressed  by  the 
actions  described  above,  it  should  be  highlighted  that  any  future  general  revision 
should take into consideration the evaluation findings.  

There is potential to bring provisions up to date and make them fit for the future. 
This  starts  with  updating  the  scope  (e.g.  reviewing  photovoltaic  panels)  and 
continues  with  removing  many  transitional  provisions,  which  were  relevant  to 
introduce the open scope, but which are no longer necessary. In parallel, the expired 
exemptions and identified administrative burdens related to different EEE categories 
could be removed from Annexes III and IV. 

Although  the  procedural  steps  for  the  two  processes  would  be  changed  as  part  of 
their  reattribution  to  ECHA,  the  framework  for  granting  exemptions  and  for 
assessing  new  substances  remains  the  same.  Nevertheless,  the  framework  would 
need to be adapted to scientific and technical progress to make it fit for purpose and 
respond flexibly to technological and market developments. For example, the criteria 
for  deciding  on  exemptions  could  take  into  account  in  which  cases  exemptions 
should expire due to their lack of relevance on the market. Also, the limited options 
for validity periods or transitional periods for exemptions could be adjusted to allow 
individual  periods  based  on  the  specific  case.  In  addition,  barriers  to  an  efficient 
process could be removed. 

Another potential measure would be to examine the appropriateness to introduce fees 
to  the  time-limited  exemption  system  for  applications  using  restricted  hazardous 
substances. 

Also,  the  RoHS  Directive  could  be  strengthened  considering  that  hazardous 
substances in EEE remain an important subject in view of the circular economy and 

(35)   Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  amending  Directive 
2011/65/EU of the  European Parliament and of the Council  as regards the re-attribution of scientific 
and  technical  tasks  to  the  European  Chemicals  Agency;  presented  together  with  Proposal  for  a 
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EC) No 178/2002,  
(EC)  No  401/2009,  (EU)  2017/745  and  (EU)  2019/1021  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council as regards the re-attribution of scientific and technical tasks and improving cooperation among 
Union agencies in the area of chemicals 

12 

 
 
 
 
zero-pollution objectives. The need to assess and possibly restrict certain hazardous 
substances remains high, e.g. for new substances used in EEE that are contrary to the 
objectives of the Directive.  

At the same time, possibilities should exist to strengthen the circular economy for 
EEE.  The  RoHS  Directive  has  potential  to  simplify  the  provisions  on  reused  spare 
parts for EEE (e.g. for the use within a specific time-limited period). The uptake of 
recycled material could be increased by introducing beneficial conditions compared 
to primary material.  

A  future  revision  would  also  be  recommended  due  to  the  interplay  with  other 
legislative 
to 
instruments  currently  being  revised  and  potentially 
adjustments of the RoHS Directive (e.g. the REACH Regulation). However, this is 
also a reason why now is not the right time for a major overhaul of the Directive. 

leading 

The presence of hazardous substances in WEEE is highly relevant for the treatment 
of  WEEE,  which  is  addressed  under  the  WEEE  Directive.  This  Directive  is 
currently under evaluation and a close coordination between the two legislative acts 
could offer many positive synergies. For example, the WEEE Directive could further 
incentivise  phasing  out  of  hazardous  substances  by  adapting  extended  producer 
responsibilities  and  vice  versa  the  RoHS  Directive  could  allow  temporarily  spare 
parts  to  support  reuse  and  repairability  of  certain  devices.  In  addition,  the  RoHS 
Directive  could  help  prevent  contamination  of  material  streams  containing  critical 
raw  materials  by  updating  its  provisions  with  regard  to  the  state  of  technical  and 
scientific  progress  or  by  allowing,  through  the  use  of  time-limited  exemptions, 
hazardous substances in EEE to circulate in a closed-loop system.  

In  order  to  set  the  course  and  allow  sufficient  preparatory  time  for  any  future 
developments,  the  possible  future  revision  of  the  Directive  should  consider  the 
legislation’s  long-term  perspective  and  its  position  within  waste,  products, 
environmental and chemicals legislation. 

13